Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.

Like natural intelligence?

No like the Jared Kushners of the world

Or the Barack Obamas, who got into Harvard Law with a below 3.3 average from Columbia (having oddly transferred there from Occidental). Or George W Bushes, for that matter.

Citation, please. Or what you typed is bullshit.

He graduated Magna Cum Laude and edited the Law review, and went on to have a coupla pretty important jobs, so clearly the admissions committee was correct in admitting him, right?

MIT is far ahead of the curve on this. Probably part of the reason it isn't discussed here -- it could care less where your relatives did or didn't go to school.

http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/just-to-be-clear-we-dont-do-legacy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.

Like natural intelligence?

Or being born to parents who value education and know how to provide reading and math experiences from an early age?

But these things build skills that are directly relevant to the actual business of elite undergraduate education. We send students to immerse themselves in a scholarly life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.

Like natural intelligence?

No like the Jared Kushners of the world

Or the Barack Obamas, who got into Harvard Law with a below 3.3 average from Columbia (having oddly transferred there from Occidental). Or George W Bushes, for that matter.

Well, since they both went on to become US Presidents, I doubt the universities regret their decisions to admit. You are ridiculous.

This question was not being addressed from the POV of the universities, but from the opportunity cost to the students who were not admitted. Imagine if people of real intelligence had been admitted in their places, as opposed to these two over/under-achievers. A 16 year disaster could have been avoided.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.

Like natural intelligence?

No like the Jared Kushners of the world

Or the Barack Obamas, who got into Harvard Law with a below 3.3 average from Columbia (having oddly transferred there from Occidental). Or George W Bushes, for that matter.

Well, since they both went on to become US Presidents, I doubt the universities regret their decisions to admit. You are ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would somebody go to Harvard if you strip them of the "connections" factor?

This is what people don't seem to get about the U.S. university system. It isn't a merit based hierarchy.

Also, there's not just one type of "merit." Test scores and grades are important, but athletic talent, artistic or musical talent, other types of talents, and social connections all add value to a university, as does diversity. Take that all away and nobody who is important will send their kids to an "elite" university. Then it's no longer "elite."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.

Like natural intelligence?

No like the Jared Kushners of the world

Or the Barack Obamas, who got into Harvard Law with a below 3.3 average from Columbia (having oddly transferred there from Occidental). Or George W Bushes, for that matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I must say the only reason I donate is because of the possibility of legacy admissions. If that goes bye bye, so will my donations.

This is why admissions offices are forced to have legacy preferences.

Yeah, they're not getting rid of it ever. The whole economic system supporting private education would collapse. Very few people donate just out of fondness for their dear ol' alma mater. (My mom does, but it's a pittance and she really does have a great loyalty to her religious single-sex school, which was a great school for girls that couldn't get into other schools decades ago due to their religion or their gender, but is not at all a place she would have wanted any of her kids to go.)

Anonymous wrote:Why would somebody go to Harvard if you strip them of the "connections" factor?

This is what people don't seem to get about the U.S. university system. It isn't a merit based hierarchy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see accidents of birth removed from admissions consideration.

Like natural intelligence?

No like the Jared Kushners of the world

Why would somebody go to Harvard if you strip them of the "connections" factor?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I must say the only reason I donate is because of the possibility of legacy admissions. If that goes bye bye, so will my donations.

This is why admissions offices are forced to have legacy preferences.

It's more than that since almost all jobs are based on personal networks (seriously how can you objectively tell recent college kids apart)

admitting children of legacies also ensures future university donations and funding

and since most major corporations are actively looking for minority candidates affirmative action makes sense from a financial standpoint for colleges as well

This is all about money folks

Anonymous wrote:I must say the only reason I donate is because of the possibility of legacy admissions. If that goes bye bye, so will my donations.

This is why admissions offices are forced to have legacy preferences.

I must say the only reason I donate is because of the possibility of legacy admissions. If that goes bye bye, so will my donations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.propublica.org/article/affirmative-action-how-the-fight-against-at-harvard-could-threaten-rich-whites

Many student groups across the ivy league have started groups asking for legacy admissions to be banned.

Great article here - i found this interesting.

Indeed, the best protection for affirmative action may be the threat that its elimination would pose to legacy preference. “Were this court to have the courage to forbid the use of racial discrimination in admissions, legacy preferences (and similar practices) might quickly become less popular — a possibility not lost, I am certain, on the elites” supporting affirmative action, Justice Clarence Thomas — not a fan of either race-based or legacy preferences — observed in 2003.

I'm against AA as well as legacy and athletic preferences. Legacy preference is about the only way my kid would get into my highly competitive alma mater, but she really shouldn't be taking the place of a more highly qualified non-legacy.

Care to put that in writing in a legally enforceable contract? Or maybe just pledge here not to check the legacy box.